Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Peter Kirby wrote:Rhetoric like that rallies the base and makes those already sold feel more secure. It doesn't make converts.

Hence it is strategic for those defending the historicity of Jesus and defeatist for those not doing so.

And so Pilate ordered Jesus crucified on the spot. According to our records, which are completely believable at this point, the soldiers roughed him up, mocked him, flogged him, and then led him off to be crucified. Evidently, two similar cases were decided that morning. Maybe a couple more the day after that and the day after that. In this instance, they took Jesus and the two others to a public place of execution and fixed them all to crosses. According to our earliest account, Jesus was dead in six hours.

Blood wrote:

And so Pilate ordered Jesus crucified on the spot. According to our records, which are completely believable at this point, the soldiers roughed him up, mocked him, flogged him, and then led him off to be crucified. Evidently, two similar cases were decided that morning. Maybe a couple more the day after that and the day after that. In this instance, they took Jesus and the two others to a public place of execution and fixed them all to crosses. According to our earliest account, Jesus was dead in six hours.

Bart Ehrman

"According to our records," "according to our earliest account" ... it all sounds so verifiable and factual. Gospel writers were historians, full stop.

Blood wrote:

And so Pilate ordered Jesus crucified on the spot. According to our records, which are completely believable at this point, the soldiers roughed him up, mocked him, flogged him, and then led him off to be crucified. Evidently, two similar cases were decided that morning. Maybe a couple more the day after that and the day after that. In this instance, they took Jesus and the two others to a public place of execution and fixed them all to crosses. According to our earliest account, Jesus was dead in six hours.

Bart Ehrman

"According to our records," "according to our earliest account" ... it all sounds so verifiable and factual. Gospel writers were historians, full stop.

It is multiply attested in numerous independent witnesses, both at the trial itself and as the charge written on the placard that hung with him on his cross.

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:

It is multiply attested in numerous independent witnesses, both at the trial itself and as the charge written on the placard that hung with him on his cross.

This is disappointing. Who are these "numerous independent witnesses?" We have Mark and that's it. Even if he wants to count John as independent of Mark, that's still not "numerous" (and he would be wrong).

Blogger Carr wrote:'According to our earliest account'...'

That must be the Gospel of Mark.

Isn't that a Gospel where Jesus calms a storm - something only a god can do?

maryhelena wrote:Interesting, Ehrman making much of 'king of the Jews' on the crucifixion notice.

According to our accounts, the trial of Jesus before Pilate was short and to the point. Pilate asked him whether it was true that he was the king of the Jews. Almost certainly, this was the actual charge leveled against Jesus. It is multiply attested in numerous independent witnesses, both at the trial itself and as the charge written on the placard that hung with him on his cross (e.g., Mark 15:2, 26).......... The charge is specifically that he called himself “king of the Jews.”.....Evidence that Jesus really did think that he was the king of the Jews is the very fact that he was killed for it. If Pilate asked him whether he were in fact calling himself this, Jesus could have simply denied it, and indicated that he meant no trouble and that he had no kingly expectations, hopes, or intentions. And that would have been that. The charge was that he was calling himself the king of the Jews, and either he flat-out admitted it or he refused to deny it. Pilate did what governors typically did in such cases. He ordered him executed as a troublemaker and political pretender .......The reason Jesus could not have denied that he called himself the king of the Jews was precisely that he did call himself the king of the Jews. He meant that, of course, in a purely apocalyptic sense: when the kingdom arrived, he would be made the king.

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/23/did_jes ... elf_image/

my bolding


If this Jesus crucifixion story is dated to 33 c.e., well then, that would make it's setting 70 years from the Roman execution of the last King of the Jews, Antigonus, in 37 b.c. Perhaps Ehrman needs to get out a history book...Maybe then he might discern that a historical reality has been used as a basis upon which the gospel writers created their pseudo-historical gospel crucifixion story.

PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi maryhelena,

Declaring yourself King of the Jews might be considered seditious, if you were the son of the previous king and had led an army in battle, as Antigonus II did. For the son of an obscure carpenter with 12 fishermen followers to declare himself "king of the Jews" is just an act of craziness. Nobody would have paid the least attention.

If Mitt Romney were to declare that the last elections were rigged and he was the real president of the United States and he gathered an army of thousands of believers around him ready to fight for him, then he would possibly be charged with sedition. On the other hand, if I were to declare myself President of the United States, I would possibly be escorted to a mental facility and restrained there, but I would never be charged with sedition.
Things were certainly similar in the Roman empire. Nobody would have paid the least attention to a two-bit beggar prophet making such an insane claim.
Jesus doesn't get arrested for beating up dozens of money-changers inside the Temple, but he gets arrested because someone heard him call himself "King?" Absurd, absurd, absurd. This is not even myth, it is silliness and garbage.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

maryhelena wrote:Interesting, Ehrman making much of 'king of the Jews' on the crucifixion notice.

According to our accounts, the trial of Jesus before Pilate was short and to the point. Pilate asked him whether it was true that he was the king of the Jews. Almost certainly, this was the actual charge leveled against Jesus. It is multiply attested in numerous independent witnesses, both at the trial itself and as the charge written on the placard that hung with him on his cross (e.g., Mark 15:2, 26).......... The charge is specifically that he called himself “king of the Jews.”.....Evidence that Jesus really did think that he was the king of the Jews is the very fact that he was killed for it. If Pilate asked him whether he were in fact calling himself this, Jesus could have simply denied it, and indicated that he meant no trouble and that he had no kingly expectations, hopes, or intentions. And that would have been that. The charge was that he was calling himself the king of the Jews, and either he flat-out admitted it or he refused to deny it. Pilate did what governors typically did in such cases. He ordered him executed as a troublemaker and political pretender .......The reason Jesus could not have denied that he called himself the king of the Jews was precisely that he did call himself the king of the Jews. He meant that, of course, in a purely apocalyptic sense: when the kingdom arrived, he would be made the king.

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/23/did_jes ... elf_image/

my bolding


If this Jesus crucifixion story is dated to 33 c.e., well then, that would make it's setting 70 years from the Roman execution of the last King of the Jews, Antigonus, in 37 b.c. Perhaps Ehrman needs to get out a history book...Maybe then he might discern that a historical reality has been used as a basis upon which the gospel writers created their pseudo-historical gospel crucifixion story.